How Facebook Played “Instrumental” Role in Rise of Burma’s Ethnic Cleansing Campaign of Rohingya

Quote:

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: It’s gotten started. So, at least in Europe, on May 25th, there is going to be a legislation that’s going to go into effect. It’s called GDPR, the General Data Protection. It’s got a lot of good things. So, it’s a big start. And a lot of people are like, “Oh, this is so onerous.” Actually, GDPR is just a start. It’s bringing some better privacy rights and some more control to users, and it will probably benefit United States and other countries, too, because the companies are going to comply with it, and it’s easier to comply globally.

I think we’ve just begun. As I can tell from the hearings, even Mark Zuckerberg, I think he’s in over his head, and I don’t think any one person can deal with this. The senators are trying to grapple with it. These are very political questions. Even if you’re not on Facebook, it doesn’t matter. This is going to affect people even if you don’t care about social media. This is how politics happens.

Not that I'm one of Mark's biggest fans. I mean, honestly, the guy is a dick. You can see how much, just watch the Social Network. And no, it was not just to the DeVoss twins, those frat boy jock dorks probably deserved it.

But, see, this is where I think this problem needs to be reframed. Facebook is a medium. I am not his defender over choices he made, choices he probably made to make sure he made money from various revenue sources, to the detriment of user privacy, and, well, factual accuracy, particularly in 2016.

But ... we all know this is not just a Facebook problem. In fact, though folks are focused on it, it really was a "social media" problem. There are Russians, bots, trolls, botnets, "socks," and all other kinds of crap on Twitter, on Instagram, on Tumblr, on Youtube & Google+, and oh yeah I don't know if folks have noticed but people like to toy and troll message boards as well. It's basically an Internet problem.

What happened to the Rohingya in Burma is terrible. Carmen's posted updates about it periodically. There's no doubt Facebook played a role; so did other social media.

The thing is, the interviewee there also brings up Rwanda. And oh yeah, hate radio definitely played a role in the Rwandan ethnocide. Particularly hate radio that called the Tutsi minority of Rwanda "cockroaches" and "vermin". I think looking back at what happened in Rwanda, though, was it the fault of "radio" (as a medium) or "hate radio" (as an odious way of using it). And then, what can you do about Rwandan hate radio that prevents it while not engaging in what would otherwise be considered censorship? Moving that question forward, we all know we don't want either genocidal hate speech or fake news on Facebook, but how do we accomplish those goals without doing it in counterproductive ways. (At this point, "we' means the human race of planet Earth.)

The U.S. Congress just passed a law (SESTA/FOSTA) which was supposedly to shut down sex trafficking, but many of its critics (especially the EFF, founded by your and my friend John Perry Barlow) see this law as exactly having those problems. They just shut down Backpage.com, which some critics argue is actually going to make it HARDER to save young girls (and others) from sex trafficking, and also punish activities which, while perhaps a bit subcultural, are neither non-consensual nor illegal. The law is counterproductive. We need to avoid doing that.

I definitely think Facebook needs to be regulated. And it's absolutely correct it's beyond just the issue of whether it needs to be regulated in the U.S. It's now operating in 200 countries, with 2 billion active users. I mean fuck, that's bigger than any country on Earth. That makes Mark the equivalent of a fucking virtual emperor. Not only is he in over his head, ANYBODY would be. Even if he was a saint and not a douchebag.

Does the UN now have to regulate Facebook? BTW, that suggestion is not facetious. Maybe it needs to go to the ITU (Intl. Telecom Union).

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

Let's focus on Facebook. It is a large and wealth social media network. Its nearest competitor is...? Doesn't really have one.

It has problems that should not be in the hands of a single private corporation, nor should it be a nationalized utility. The regulations to protect privacy should be put into law.

You know the problems are not impossible to solve, but it takes transparency and persistence like other such regulations, banks for instances. Congress hasn't want to do anything toward regulations, obviously, but it is high time that that attitude is changed. As soon as regulations and controls are put in place, Republican-type conservatives dismantle them.

Getting people to act nice is one problem and getting people to be nice is another.

I think there's two questions Facebook, and not just them, are facing.

Are they doing enough to protect users' privacy?

But question two:

Do they have any responsibility toward what people share/post/host on Facebook? At least with regards to whether it is content that is false, fraudulent, and deceptive? Or, as Fox was asking at the top, that is hateful to the point of being genocidal?

I'm not saying there are easy answers to these questions. Yes, they're a common carrier. They don't make content, they just supply a place to put it by users. I just find Zuck way too glib, in the way of so many Silly-Con valley billionaires, in handwaving away or dismissing the possibility that with regard to these other sets of issues, they a) can't do anything and b) shouldn't do anything. He knows a) is not true, and b) may really depend on how the shareholders feel.

If he stays that glib, maybe it's time for some lawmakers to make some laws that will make him and his company do something. But, these congress-guys often strike me as not very savvy about the stuff they're regulating, which leads me to worry about what laws they will pass. SESTA/FOSTA has sucked ass. So did the Communications Decency Act.

Problem two, though, since Facebook operates all over the world, this can't be any more just a question of what regulations they face in the U.S., only. You're closing the barn doors on a cow whose flatulence now engulfs the entire world.

_________________-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.Malaclypse the Younger

I believe Zuckerberg has the responsibility to act when he knows his outfit has been breached. But his policy has been to keep his legal costs down and ignore it...and if caught out, feign ignorance of the breach. Now he's been caught at it and it's costing him.

Let's focus on Facebook. It is a large and wealth social media network. Its nearest competitor is...? Doesn't really have one.

They certainly do in Alphabet/Google/Gmail/YouTube, and Twitter. It's why the three of them got snagged by the Senate a few months back, for selling ads to the Kremlin.

Thing is, it's not just Facebook. IMO, they're becoming a go-to scapegoat because of their high-profile problems, but the problem is far more wide-reaching than them. But like any other instance of scapegoating, focusing on the scapegoat won't solve the problem. It's also the psychometric firms in bed with dictatorships (e.g. Cambridge Analytica, Black Cube, Aggregate IQ which just got kicked off of FB a couple days ago). And then there's the ad partnerships, which FB claims to have shut down. Shutting Down Partner Categories - FB

And then in conjunction with all of the above there are the internet advertising firms and their umbrella groups like the Digital Advertising Alliance, Network Advertising Alliance, etc. Some companies and firms are members in multiple umbrella organizations.

Then there all the ads in the App Store and Google Play. So Zuck may well be in over his head, but he's not by himself. We all are.

Quote:

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: It’s gotten started. So, at least in Europe, on May 25th, there is going to be a legislation that’s going to go into effect. It’s called GDPR, the General Data Protection. It’s got a lot of good things. So, it’s a big start. And a lot of people are like, “Oh, this is so onerous.” Actually, GDPR is just a start. It’s bringing some better privacy rights and some more control to users, and it will probably benefit United States and other countries, too, because the companies are going to comply with it, and it’s easier to comply globally.

I think we’ve just begun. As I can tell from the hearings, even Mark Zuckerberg, I think he’s in over his head, and I don’t think any one person can deal with this. The senators are trying to grapple with it. These are very political questions. Even if you’re not on Facebook, it doesn’t matter. This is going to affect people even if you don’t care about social media. This is how politics happens.

Tufekci is a really interesting person and has been really making me want to go to UNC-Chapel Hill Info School, lately!

Not that I'm one of Mark's biggest fans. I mean, honestly, the guy is a dick. You can see how much, just watch the Social Network. And no, it was not just to the DeVoss twins, those frat boy jock dorks probably deserved it.

But, see, this is where I think this problem needs to be reframed. Facebook is a medium. I am not his defender over choices he made, choices he probably made to make sure he made money from various revenue sources, to the detriment of user privacy, and, well, factual accuracy, particularly in 2016.

But ... we all know this is not just a Facebook problem. In fact, though folks are focused on it, it really was a "social media" problem. There are Russians, bots, trolls, botnets, "socks," and all other kinds of crap on Twitter, on Instagram, on Tumblr, on Youtube & Google+, and oh yeah I don't know if folks have noticed but people like to toy and troll message boards as well. It's basically an Internet problem.

What happened to the Rohingya in Burma is terrible. Carmen's posted updates about it periodically. There's no doubt Facebook played a role; so did other social media.

The thing is, the interviewee there also brings up Rwanda. And oh yeah, hate radio definitely played a role in the Rwandan ethnocide. Particularly hate radio that called the Tutsi minority of Rwanda "cockroaches" and "vermin". I think looking back at what happened in Rwanda, though, was it the fault of "radio" (as a medium) or "hate radio" (as an odious way of using it). And then, what can you do about Rwandan hate radio that prevents it while not engaging in what would otherwise be considered censorship? Moving that question forward, we all know we don't want either genocidal hate speech or fake news on Facebook, but how do we accomplish those goals without doing it in counterproductive ways. (At this point, "we' means the human race of planet Earth.)

The U.S. Congress just passed a law (SESTA/FOSTA) which was supposedly to shut down sex trafficking, but many of its critics (especially the EFF, founded by your and my friend John Perry Barlow) see this law as exactly having those problems. They just shut down Backpage.com, which some critics argue is actually going to make it HARDER to save young girls (and others) from sex trafficking, and also punish activities which, while perhaps a bit subcultural, are neither non-consensual nor illegal. The law is counterproductive. We need to avoid doing that.

I definitely think Facebook needs to be regulated. And it's absolutely correct it's beyond just the issue of whether it needs to be regulated in the U.S. It's now operating in 200 countries, with 2 billion active users. I mean fuck, that's bigger than any country on Earth. That makes Mark the equivalent of a fucking virtual emperor. Not only is he in over his head, ANYBODY would be. Even if he was a saint and not a douchebag.

Does the UN now have to regulate Facebook? BTW, that suggestion is not facetious. Maybe it needs to go to the ITU (Intl. Telecom Union).

She's the first person I thought of when I saw this gem on FB Newsroom the other day

Today, Facebook is announcing a new initiative to help provide independent, credible research about the role of social media in elections, as well as democracy more generally. It will be funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Democracy Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Charles Koch Foundation, the Omidyar Network, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

...

The commission will exercise its mandate in several ways:

Prioritization of research agenda. The research sponsored by this effort is designed to help people better understand social media’s impact on democracy — and Facebook to ensure that it has the right systems in place. For example, will our current product roadmap effectively fight the spread of misinformation and foreign interference? Specific topics may include misinformation; polarizing content; promoting freedom of expression and association; protecting domestic elections from foreign interference; and civic engagement. Commission members will learn about Facebook’s internal efforts related to elections, and source input from the academic community to determine the most important unanswered research questions. They will also begin to work with international experts to develop research evaluating Facebook’s impact in upcoming elections — with the goal of identifying and mitigating possible negative effects.

Solicitation of independent research. As the commission identifies areas to assess Facebook’s effectiveness, it will work with Facebook to develop requests for research proposals. In accordance with standard academic protocols, proposals will be subject to rigorous peer view. The peer review process will be managed by the Social Science Research Council, which is well placed to tap into the global network of substantive, ethical, and privacy experts. Based on input from the peer review process, the commission will independently select grantees who will receive funds from the supporting foundations, and, when appropriate, privacy-protected data from Facebook.

So I guess it's a bunch of data science folks. But I would love to hear what she's got to say about this.

On Capitol Hill, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced off with lawmakers for a second straight day Wednesday, admitting to a House committee that he, too, had data from his Facebook account collected by a third party without his consent. Zuckerberg’s testimony came as lawmakers investigate how the voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica harvested data from more than 87 million Facebook users, without their permission, in efforts to sway voters to support President Donald Trump. This is Zuckerberg being questioned by Illinois Democratic Congressmember Bobby Rush.

Rep. Bobby Rush: “Mr. Zuckerberg, what is the difference between Facebook’s methodology and the methodology of the American political pariah, J. Edgar Hoover?Mark Zuckerberg: “Congressman, this is an important question, because I think people often ask what the difference is between surveillance and what we do. And I think that the difference is extremely clear, which is that, on Facebook, you have control over your information. The content that you share, you put there. You can take it down at any time. The information that we collect, you can choose to have us not collect. You can delete any of it. And, of course, you can leave Facebook if you want.”

What hogwash. As a site that is advertised to be a family friendly social media, it turns out it is not so good of place, as it should be. to post your personal life information to your friends and family.

Also, when I signed up, I was surprised to find it posted all kinds of information about my business and education that I never provided to them. I don't even know how they got it.

It is so full of junk on the webpages that I don't ever go there anymore. Many years ago I started using a different social website, that is long gone, but everybody I knew started using FB, so it was easier to use FB. Now, I use the telephone. Email is so overused that messages get lost.

What hogwash. As a site that is advertised to be a family friendly social media, it turns out it is not so good of place, as it should be. to post your personal life information to your friends and family.

Also, when I signed up, I was surprised to find it posted all kinds of information about my business and education that I never provided to them. I don't even know how they got it.

It is so full of junk on the webpages that I don't ever go there anymore. Many years ago I started using a different social website, that is long gone, but everybody I knew started using FB, so it was easier to use FB. Now, I use the telephone. Email is so overused that messages get lost.

> Then there all the ads in the App Store and Google Play. So Zuck may well be in over his head, but he's not by himself. We all are.

Bingo.

It got away from us. Kind of like World War I, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Zuckerberg's kind of the guy you love to hate. He has the instincts of a lizard, and does less to keep insects and small rodents from overpopulating. He made everyone feel sorry for those overprivileged Winklevoss airheads, and that's not easy. He makes me glad all over again that I didn't go to an Eastern university.

_________________"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)

> Then there all the ads in the App Store and Google Play. So Zuck may well be in over his head, but he's not by himself. We all are.

Bingo.

It got away from us. Kind of like World War I, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Zuckerberg's kind of the guy you love to hate. He has the instincts of a lizard, and does less to keep insects and small rodents from overpopulating. He made everyone feel sorry for those overprivileged Winklevoss airheads, and that's not easy. He makes me glad all over again that I didn't go to an Eastern university.

There are problems every which way you turn. I've complained about Google many times before. But Facebook's breach of trust is egregious, for the reasons I've mentioned.

All the large corporate computer companies have taken over and are hijacking people's right's. This story about FB appears worse than we thought and they deserves what they're getting. Zuckerberg's not a scapegoat.

There are problems every which way you turn. I've complained about Google many times before. But Facebook's breach of trust is egregious, for the reasons I've mentioned.

All the large corporate computer companies have taken over and are hijacking people's right's.

Terms of service, man. When's the last time you read the cookies or data collection policies clearly flagging one to do so as soon as you go to basically any commercial site?

Email does not get lost, if you know how to use email and make use of tools like filters and labels.

Anyway...

Quote:

This story about FB appears worse than we thought and they deserves what they're getting. Zuckerberg's not a scapegoat.

Well look, I get it. You had a poor experience with Facebook so it's easy highlight what you sense to be its flaws.

None of these online/internet/data companies protect their users any more than shareholders give two kitties about consumers...only insofar as covering their own butts in the pursuit of $$$. None of them; no, not one.

Not sure if you saw these stories, but couple weeks before the C.A. whistleblowing started, the CEO of Twitter made a big show of a mea culpa about the ways in which Twitter is also broken -- his term.

"We have witnessed abuse, harassment, troll armies, manipulation through bots and human-coordination, misinformation campaigns, and increasingly divisive echo chambers," Dorsey said. "We aren't proud of how people have taken advantage of our service, or our inability to address it fast enough."Dorsey said Twitter has tried to fix issues by removing content that doesn't meet its use terms but that, in doing so, has been "accused of apathy, censorship, political bias, and optimizing for our business and share price instead of the concerns of a society."

In other words, Twitter has found itself in a bit of a Catch-22. Dorsey said Twitter now needs to "help encourage more healthy debate, conversations, and critical thinking," and is working with two independent firms, Cortico and Social Machines, to try to learn how to better gauge the conversations taking place on Twitter.

Dorsey also said Twitter wants additional help and is opening a request for proposals (RFP) in an effort to discover new ideas on how it can improve the platform. Firms picked to work with Twitter will get "public data access" and "meaningful funding for their research," Dorsey said.

So that's kinda cute, after getting that fingerwagging by the Senate that they need to get their act together. Ev Williams ran from hither to yon saying the same thing all last year.

Misdiagnose the problem and you'll still be stuck with the problem. This is an exceptionally American problem. I use that word on purpose. IMO Facebook, much like "Donald Trump," is a symptom. Dumping on Mark Zuckerberg and watching him squirm at some Congressional hearings might make people feel vindicated for a minute. But putting him on the hot seat for a few days or even regulating Facebook or Ma-Bell'ing it is only a start to fixing this mess because it's Facebook and much of what the internet has become, in general.

_________________Stop calling the cops on us.

Last edited by carmenjonze on Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

> Then there all the ads in the App Store and Google Play. So Zuck may well be in over his head, but he's not by himself. We all are.

Bingo.

It got away from us. Kind of like World War I, and for pretty much the same reasons.

The end of the Hapsburgs, the end of the Ottoman Empire, the end of the Victorian Era?

Oh and the end of the robber barons?

Quote:

Zuckerberg's kind of the guy you love to hate. He has the instincts of a lizard, and does less to keep insects and small rodents from overpopulating. He made everyone feel sorry for those overprivileged Winklevoss airheads, and that's not easy. He makes me glad all over again that I didn't go to an Eastern university.

Well...and then there's Stanford. Go, Bears.

It's like these guys are all competitors on paper but then they all party together, then start swapping wives and coking up and whatever other stupefying antisocial behavior new-money overprivileged grownup fratboys engage in to try and impress each other. This is cartel behavior, as far as I'm concerned.

I think there's two questions Facebook, and not just them, are facing.

Are they doing enough to protect users' privacy?

But question two:

Do they have any responsibility toward what people share/post/host on Facebook? At least with regards to whether it is content that is false, fraudulent, and deceptive? Or, as Fox was asking at the top, that is hateful to the point of being genocidal?

I'm not saying there are easy answers to these questions. Yes, they're a common carrier. They don't make content, they just supply a place to put it by users. I just find Zuck way too glib, in the way of so many Silly-Con valley billionaires, in handwaving away or dismissing the possibility that with regard to these other sets of issues, they a) can't do anything and b) shouldn't do anything. He knows a) is not true, and b) may really depend on how the shareholders feel.

If he stays that glib, maybe it's time for some lawmakers to make some laws that will make him and his company do something. But, these congress-guys often strike me as not very savvy about the stuff they're regulating, which leads me to worry about what laws they will pass. SESTA/FOSTA has sucked ass. So did the Communications Decency Act.

Problem two, though, since Facebook operates all over the world, this can't be any more just a question of what regulations they face in the U.S., only. You're closing the barn doors on a cow whose flatulence now engulfs the entire world.

Plus, FB donates to Congresscritters. So I don't hold out much hope for any meaningful legislation.

Fox could be right, the recent headlines just about Facebook alone are egregious.

And that might prompt someone to act, but with a Repub majority? We'll see what happens in the midterms.

If C.A./Bannon/Mercers/Breitbart/Kushner/Bolton/Cohen/with data stored in Russia doesn't get Bernieville to stay home again. And if instead of chasing $$$ the major social co's don't go selling ads to the damn Kremlin, again.

Terms of service, man. When's the last time you read the cookies or data collection policies clearly flagging one to do so as soon as you go to basically any commercial site?

Email does not get lost, if you know how to use email and make use of tools like filters and labels.

Anyway...

Well look, I get it. You had a poor experience with Facebook so it's easy highlight what you sense to be its flaws.

None of these online/internet/data companies protect their users any more than shareholders give two kitties about consumers...only insofar as covering their own butts in the pursuit of $$$. None of them; no, not one.

Not sure if you saw these stories, but couple weeks before the C.A. whistleblowing started, the CEO of Twitter made a big show of a mea culpa about the ways in which Twitter is also broken -- his term.

So that's kinda cute, after getting that fingerwagging by the Senate that they need to get their act together. Ev Williams ran from hither to yon saying the same thing all last year.

Misdiagnose the problem and you'll still be stuck with the problem. This is an exceptionally American problem. I use that word on purpose. IMO Facebook, much like "Donald Trump," is a symptom. Dumping on Mark Zuckerberg and watching him squirm at some Congressional hearings might make people feel vindicated for a minute. But putting him on the hot seat for a few days or even regulating Facebook or Ma-Bell'ing it is only a start to fixing this mess because it's Facebook and much of what the internet has become, in general.

Regulating? Maybe. I don’t know how you’d do that. If there is a place where people can lie basically with impunity it is the interwebs. How the hell would Facebook be able to backtrack everything? Troll farms/criminal facilities can be set up anywhere with data and programs routed anywhere.

As for Ma-Bell’ing them, that ain’t gonna happen. Not because it shouldn’t but there is nothing to Ma-Bell.

_________________bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

Regulating? Maybe. I don’t know how you’d do that. If there is a place where people can lie basically with impunity it is the interwebs. How the hell would Facebook be able to backtrack everything? Troll farms/criminal facilities can be set up anywhere with data and programs routed anywhere.

As for Ma-Bell’ing them, that ain’t gonna happen. Not because it shouldn’t but there is nothing to Ma-Bell.

Sure, there is. There's a reason the company has two billion active users and 25K employees.

But you're right that that's not going to happen, either. Plus, even in the case of Ma Bell, 12 years later we got the Telecomm at of 1996, where the Baby Bell ended up buying up the former parent company.

But that's just back to something I've been saying in this whole thread (and Ms. Tufekci agrees with me): Zuck's not the only person in over his head. We all are. And that horse left the barn decades ago.

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: It’s gotten started. So, at least in Europe, on May 25th, there is going to be a legislation that’s going to go into effect. It’s called GDPR, the General Data Protection. It’s got a lot of good things. So, it’s a big start. And a lot of people are like, “Oh, this is so onerous.” Actually, GDPR is just a start. It’s bringing some better privacy rights and some more control to users, and it will probably benefit United States and other countries, too, because the companies are going to comply with it, and it’s easier to comply globally.

I think we’ve just begun. As I can tell from the hearings, even Mark Zuckerberg, I think he’s in over his head, and I don’t think any one person can deal with this. The senators are trying to grapple with it. These are very political questions. Even if you’re not on Facebook, it doesn’t matter. This is going to affect people even if you don’t care about social media. This is how politics happens.

The General Data Protection legislation in Europe is what is needed in the US. We obviously can't rely on FB.

Facebook is a little different than most internet companies. It is huge. It is advertised as a family place to exhibit your personal things to your friends. Then they turn around and let it get harvested by outside companies and hide it from the users. Great. Their neglect extends to reported misuse by people committing genocide.

Of course, it is not appropriate to allow FB to make up ethical and political laws. It is the lawmaker's job. That horrible thing Republicans hate, regulation of business.

The General Data Protection legislation in Europe is what is needed in the US. We obviously can't rely on FB.

In my best Arnold impression:

ItisnotjustFacebook

Limiting one's sights to one company among hundreds of others doing the same thing either in conjunction with that company or in conjunction with each other will not solve the problem.

Quote:

Facebook is a little different than most internet companies. It is huge. It is advertised as a family place to exhibit your personal things to your friends. Then they turn around and let it get harvested by outside companies and hide it from the users. Great. Their neglect extends to reported misuse by people committing genocide.

Of course, it is not appropriate to allow FB to make up ethical and political laws. It is the lawmaker's job. That horrible thing Republicans hate, regulation of business.

These hearing show how inept and corrupt businesses are operated.

They also showed once again that the olds in Congress are utterly clueless about the platform/company but are pretty good at grandstanding. The thing distinguishes Facebook is the size, that's true, and it's also the name-recognition. The big company that made "algorithm" a four-letter word.

Palantir, founded by an original angel investor in Facebook, is every bit as bad and even more invasive. It even makes the news. But it's more satisfying to talk about the devil everybody knows.

This was also charming news last week re: Grindr, one of the most popular dating apps used by gay men. While everybody was wagging their fingers at Mark Zuckerberg, it also hit the news that Grindr got caught sharing user's HIV status, of all things.

Apptimize and Localytics, companies that help “optimize” apps, are being sent Grindr users’ HIV status and the date they were last tested if it is included in their profile. The information also includes users’ screen names, GPS data, email address and phone ID.

The lawsuit says that Fiserv, a company the pharmacy hired to send a letter to some customers about their participation in the state’s HIV drug assistance program, used an envelope that allowed anyone to their HIV status through the clear window on the envelope.

...

“CVS Health places the highest priority on protecting the privacy of those we serve, and we take our responsibility to safeguard confidential information very seriously,”

GDPR is already a b#tch on wheels to implement, and basically everybody's got to do it because you might get visitors from a country under the stipulation. But as ProfX said earlier, how can I trust Congress to come up with either meaningful regulations with teeth, when they 1- think the internet is a series of tubes and more ominously, come up with stupid laws like FOSTA and SESTA, which purport to be about human trafficking but are really just more conservative scarlet letter moralizing.

There is imo a better idea being floated post-Zuck hearings, and that is to end the practice of targeted ads.

YouTube has been illegally obtaining data on children’s viewing patterns, according to more than 20 advocacy groups in the US.

In a joint complaint filed to the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, they allege the Google subsidiary is violating children’s online privacy by collecting data and using it to target advertising.

Under federal law, websites directed at children under the age of 13 are required to get parental consent in order to collect data.

Those are “the basic requirements, and Google doesn’t even try to meet them”, said the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, a signatory to the complaint.

“Instead, their privacy policy says that YouTube isn’t for children under 13, and that kids shouldn’t use it,” it added.

How about just getting rid of ad targeting. These co's would be forced to change their infamous "business model" whiwh makes bank from allowing this kind of access. It's something FB in particular has made a big public show of cracking down on over the past few months. Mozilla Foundation (Mozilla makes the Firefox browser), have a related, Facebook-focused petition about this.

Facebook is not necessarily the biggest offender. But it's definitely the one whose name everybody knows. Targeting Facebook with the all the heat of a million suns or otherwise making an example of Mark Zuckerberg is not going to fix the problem because that leaves all the other offenders that people do not know. And nothing gets done.

An interesting point in the DN! interview was that if laws require ethical use of personal data in Europe, it would tend to make the policy universal since it is much easier to have a universal policy on the world wide web.

I think it will be fixed but the Republicans never are going to like regulations. Too bad. Life's ruff.

GDPR doesn't target only Facebook. Facebook just deserves as much heat as it can get, if only to be made an example of.

Nice platitude but it's basically meaningless in the scope of what the internet is, what data is, what data privacy is.

Quote:

An interesting point in the DN! interview was that if laws require ethical use of personal data in Europe, it would tend to make the policy universal since it is much easier to have a universal policy on the world wide web.

I think it will be fixed but the Republicans never are going to like regulations. Too bad. Life's ruff.

I wonder if you're going out of your way to miss the point. There's not going to be a universal policy on the world wide web. What I've been saying about GDPR is that it's already having an effect because one never knows where one's site visitors are going to come in from and you want your site to not generate complaints.

We'll start to see how effective it actually is, once we start to see what happens to non-compliant sites.

Quote:

GDPR doesn't target only Facebook.

Yeah, I know. But I'm not over-focused on that one single company.

GDPR not only affects every website that collects data, it's multi-country (not even European countries have standardized privacy laws) and is one of many ways of getting a handle on securing site visitor data. GDPR is not a panacea and it remains to be seen what effects it's really going to have.

I just hope that in the US it's not going to be just another lawsuit generator, or a fine generator. For the most part, unless you're a tech with my views/way of doing busines, techs and businesses in the US just aren't that concerned about it.

Quote:

Facebook just deserves as much heat as it can get, if only to be made an example of.

Making an example out of this one company out of some personal vendetta isn't going to solve the issue any more than bombing Syria is going to teach Assad anything. Scapegoating works for maybe that window of a few minutes in which people who hate Mark Zuckerberg or whatever feel better. It's not that an effective a way to change companies like these.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum